Monday, February 05, 2007

CIBC: Goverments ARE Acting, And Soon Alberta Will Owe EVERYONE Money

Crude oil consumption in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries dropped last year for the first time in 20 years as a result of the aggressive actions by many of those nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to CIBC World Markets Inc.

[...]

Rubin anticipates that the provinces and states will put a cap on carbon dioxide emissions while at the same time establishing an emissions trading system that would allow bigger polluters to buy emissions credits from other firms that are emitting less than they are allowed under the cap.In CIBC's January World Markets Outlook release, Rubin argued that:

"What investors have to be wary of is not the future direction of oil prices, but what the eventual net backs to oil producers will be in a carbon-regulated environment [...] While we know that oil sands producers will have to be huge purchasers of emission credits, we don't know what the market-clearing price for those credits will be. "The experience of the over decade-long functioning CO(2) and NOx-emission trading systems in the U.S. reveals that over time the market price for emissions credits rises sharply as emission caps are gradually lowered. Depending upon how stringent the cap, the real investment risk is that much of the economic rents from rising oil prices may be diverted from shareholders of oil producers to owners of much-sought-after emissions.

For this reason, Rubin is now suggesting that investors lower their exposure to oil.

Since the Harper government does not seem willing to join an International emissions trading market, let's assume a Canada wide version. This map shows historical and projected Carbon emissions by region. And here's a hint. Get outta Calgary, move to Montreal, and watch the sky for airplanes dropping oil-patch money over the city.

The best part of it is that, since the U.S. is heading in the same direction (perhaps even more swiftly than Canada), Alberta won't be able to evade their responsibilities by separating, unless they have the whole province towed over to China.

Last week's headlines about the United Nations' latest report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like the most fervent religious evangelical. Yet the real news in the fourth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be how far it is backpedaling on some key issues. Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled.

The document that caused such a stir was only a short policy report, a summary of the full scientific report due in May. Written mainly by policymakers (not scientists) who have a stake in the issue, the summary was long on dire predictions. The press reported the bullet points, noting that this latest summary pronounced with more than "90% confidence" that humans have been the main drivers of warming since the 1950s, and that higher temperatures and rising sea levels would result.

More pertinent is the underlying scientific report. And according to people who have seen that draft, it contains startling revisions of previous U.N. predictions. For example, the Center for Science and Public Policy has just released an illuminating analysis written by Lord Christopher Monckton, a one-time adviser to Margaret Thatcher who has become a voice of sanity on global warming.

Take rising sea levels. In its 2001 report, the U.N.'s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. Lord Monckton notes that the upcoming report's high-end best estimate is 17 inches, or half the previous prediction. Similarly, the new report shows that the 2001 assessment had overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

Such reversals (and there are more) are remarkable, given that the IPCC's previous reports, in 1990, 1995 and 2001, have been steadily more urgent in their scientific claims and political tone. It's worth noting that many of the policymakers who tinker with the IPCC reports work for governments that have promoted climate fears as a way of justifying carbon-restriction policies. More skeptical scientists are routinely vetoed from contributing to the panel's work. The Pasteur Institute's Paul Reiter, a malaria expert who thinks global warming would have little impact on the spread of that disease, is one example.

U.N. scientists have relied heavily on computer models to predict future climate change, and these crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate. According to the models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to have risen in recent years. Yet according to the U.S. National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001--in the range of measurement error and thus not statistically significant.

The models also predicted that sea levels would rise much faster than they actually have. The models didn't predict the significant cooling the oceans have undergone since 2003--which is the opposite of what you'd expect with global warming. Cooler oceans have also put a damper on claims that global warming is the cause of more frequent or intense hurricanes. The models also failed to predict falling concentrations of methane in the atmosphere, another surprise.

Meanwhile, new scientific evidence keeps challenging previous assumptions. The latest report, for instance, takes greater note of the role of pollutant particles, which are thought to reflect sunlight back to space, supplying a cooling effect. More scientists are also studying the effect of solar activity on climate, and some believe it alone is responsible for recent warming.

All this appears to be resulting in a more cautious scientific approach, which is largely good news. We're told that the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous "hockey stick," a study by Michael Mann that purported to show 900 years of minor fluctuations in temperature, followed by a dramatic spike over the past century. The IPCC featured the graph in 2001, but it has since been widely rebutted.

While everyone concedes that the Earth is about a degree Celsius warmer than it was a century ago, the debate continues over the cause and consequences. We don't deny that carbon emissions may play a role, but we don't believe that the case is sufficiently proven to justify a revolution in global energy use. The economic dislocations of such an abrupt policy change could be far more severe than warming itself, especially if it reduces the growth and innovation that would help the world cope with, say, rising sea levels. There are also other problems--AIDS, malaria and clean drinking water, for example--whose claims on scarce resources are at least as urgent as climate change.

The IPCC report should be understood as one more contribution to the warming debate, not some definitive last word that justifies radical policy change. It can be hard to keep one's head when everyone else is predicting the Apocalypse, but that's all the more reason to keep cool and focus on the actual science.

You're right, it's Alberta's fault for pumping that oil out of the ground and FORCING it on the kind, enviro-friendly wiccans of Ontopia and Quebadise who wouldn't DREAM of buying an SUV and driving 50 miles a day all by themselves to work. Those evil Westerners must be doing it at gunpoint, with guns no doubt smuggled in from the U.S. via George Bush.

Tell you what; park your car for four months and turn down your thermostat to 8ºC as a sign that you're actually going to 'do something' about global warming. We'll see how committed you really are.

Celebrant: You don't know how hard it is to set priorities!All: Stephen Harper is fat.

Entrance Hymn : Lo, Dion comes, with CO2 ascending.

The Confession & Absolution

All: Almighty Kyoto, we confess and bewail our exhaust manifold sins. We are heartily sorry and repent of all our SUVs. Look not on the size of our carbon footprint, but on our platitudes and vague pronouncements and grant that we may serve you in elected office when the fat guy leaves. Amen.

Celebrant: Go forth and rejoice in your convictions for fraud (or it may be theft, conspiracy or other white collar crime).

The Readings

A reading from the profit Suzuki.

An inconvenient sermon may then be given by Al Gore.

The Renewal of Green Vows

Celebrant: Do you renounce fossil fuels and all their emissions?All: We renounce them. Next year, or maybe the one after.

Celebrant: Are you prepared to turn off the lights and sacrifice your economy?All: There will be no economic consequences.

Celebrant: Are you willing to save the planet by reducing your 2% contribution to greenhouse gases while the rest of the world may or may not?All: We are Canada. Somebody notice us, please.

Celebrant: Do you support the establishment of international carbon-trading systems?The Developing World: Send us your money!

Celebrant: Will you seize control of the oil sands, according to the prophesy of Holland?All: Alberta can blow me.

Closing Prayer:

All: Our climate, which art changing, give us doomsday and our daily threat. Do not forgive those who emit against thee, while we forgive those who did nothing for 13 years. Lead us not into reality but deliver us from any kind of rational thought. For thine is the panic, the hysteria and the media buzz.

"killl kyoto..." failed to give a citation for what it was quoting in the first post. Was it the Fraser Institute's crappy little production that was produced officially today and leaked by DeSmotBlog last week?

I seen jest today that the Pryminister of Australia is warmin' up t' cap'n'trade. I figger Dubya's big bizness buddy boys'll sell the emissions tradin' plan t' Georgie purty soon an' then King Steve'll do like he always does an' fall in behind Dubya.

Now, tonight in the House o' Comments, there havin' that there vote on reconfirmin' Canadee's commitment t' Kyoto. That oughta be sum fun.

I ain't a parliamentary scholar so mebbe sumbuddy can help me out. If parliament votes fer reconfirmin' Kyoto, does that mean Harper has to do so? If he don't, is he in contempt o' parliament? Can the Cons be punished if they don't obey the majority vote?

I'm hopin' any vote by our elected MP's has teeth. If not, it's jest more time-wastin'.